^There is (or was) an E3, but it lacks a volume control and is not well thought of by nwavguy, so I wasn't sure what exactly you were suggesting. Thanks for the clarification.

Regarding the Behringer UCA202's output impedance spec of 50 ohm for the UCA202 and driving low impedance headphones, I suspect the importance of strictly adhering to the "1/8th rule" is a bit exaggerated. He only shows a worst case scenario, his Ultimate Ears SuperFi 5 Pro, and from there scares everyone into accepting this rule as gospel. I really wish I could see more curves than just that. For all we know the amount of deviation plummets with a conventional, non-balanced armature design with a similarly low impedance, or if one accepts deviations of say +/- 1 dB as being relatively benign (considering the much larger, comparatively rollercoaster curves of different headphones in general, one model to the next), his "rule" becomes more like "1/2" or "1/4" , for all we know. Your thoughts?

This post has been edited by greynol: Mar 14 2013, 01:53

Reason for edit: Added quote which links to the original discussion for context

^There is (or was) an E3, but it lacks a volume control and is not well thought of by nwavguy, so I wasn't sure what exactly you were suggesting. Thanks for the clarification.

Regarding the Behringer UCA202's output impedance spec of 50 ohm for the UCA202 and driving low impedance headphones, I suspect the importance of strictly adhering to the "1/8th rule" is a bit exaggerated. He only shows a worst case scenario, his Ultimate Ears SuperFi 5 Pro, and from there scares everyone into accepting this rule as gospel. I really wish I could see more curves than just that. For all we know the amount of deviation plummets with a conventional, non-balanced armature design with a similarly low impedance, or if one accepts deviations of say +/- 1 dB as being relatively benign (considering the much larger, comparatively rollercoaster curves of different headphones in general, one model to the next), his "rule" becomes more like "1/2" or "1/4" , for all we know. Your thoughts?

50 ohms is about 3 times 16 ohms and 16 ohms is a pretty common impedance for headphones and earphones, so I don't think NWAVguy is exaggerating the source impedance issue.

When the source impedance is >> the impedance of the headphones, even just a broad 10% change in impedance can be audible.

...I'd say hes quite conservative. The impact of output impedance is enormous, and it factors into more then just frequency response (see THD at 1/2 vs. 1/8 for instance).

Thanks, but might you do me a favor and point out a particular example within those 100 files [all of devices with output impedances that are unknown to me and to the best of my knowledge not stated within the file itself], which demonstrates that breaking the 1/8th rule by just a little, (say closer to 1/4, 1/5th, 1/6th or 1/7th) causes a response variation one would expect to be audible? Thanks.

I don't doubt there will be visual problems with the graphs at anything less than his 1/8th rule, sure, however I've read some stuff he's written which suggests to me that he's concerned with tiny visual deviations of such plots which I would not expect to be audible in real world use. That's what I'm trying to gauge: what he considers a problem vs. what I consider a problem.

Thanks, but might you do me a favor and point out a particular example within those 100 files [all of devices with output impedances that are unknown to me and to the best of my knowledge not stated within the file itself], which demonstrates that breaking the 1/8th rule by just a little, (say closer to 1/4, 1/5th, 1/6th or 1/7th) causes a response variation one would expect to be audible? Thanks.

Ugh no, I have no idea what those values are. I don't actually own all those devices. Other then that some devices are obviously too high and others obviously low enough.

QUOTE (mzil @ Feb 25 2013, 18:26)

I don't doubt there will be visual problems with the graphs at anything less than his 1/8th rule, sure, however I've read some stuff he's written which suggests to me that he's concerned with tiny visual deviations of such plots which I would not expect to be audible in real world use.

1/8 is just a rule of thumb. Its not a "strict" rule like you're suggesting because these aren't linear devices. It depends on the impedance vs. frequency relationship of both the amp and headphones as well as the nonlinear behavior of both devices. Trying to come up with a precise rule isn't going to work. Some devices will need much less then 1/8, others will be relatively fine with more.

So while you can measure the output impedance to see how "good" an amp is, you still need to actually test the device with a given load to see exactly how it will perform.

Having to research what the published output impedance is of those 30 or 40 devices and then opening those 100 files to then calculate which ones deviate from the 1/8 rule grossly, to then compare such curves against the ones which deviate more subtly, like 1/4, 1/5th, 1/6th, etc., is not what I meant when I wrote that, but thanks anyways.

Perhaps it is useful to you since you have the output impedances of these various devices commited to memory, I don't, so I have no idea by how much they break the 1/8th rule of thumb. Remember, I never questioned if impedance can have consequences on the frequency response. That's not the topic.

QUOTE

The purple line on this graph looks pretty audible to me. I'll leave evaluation of the rest of the parameters to you.

I'm not interested in what you deem audible, I'm interested in what nwavguy deems audible. EEs aren't always the best psychoacousticians, I've found.

I'd ideally like to see (the curves of) an example of a combination of devices (headphone and amp) which just barely breaks his 1/8 rule (say for example 1/5th, 1/6th, or 1/7th). I would like to know why he goes with 1/8th as his rule of thumb and not, say for example, 1/6th, 1/7th or 1/9th.

It all comes down to the fact that I once saw him comment on the deviation of some curve, possibly completely unrelated to impedance, I can't recall, which he deemed "an audible problem". I, on the other hand, looked at the greatly expanded dB scale on the left edge and noted that this "problem" amounted to an overall frequency response deviation of just +/-1 dB (or so, IIRC) from 20-20kHz, with relatively smooth transitions from octave to octave, nothing abrupt, and thinking to myself "He calls that an audible problem?".

Sorry, I don't have the time to re-examine everything he has ever written to find it again, but it established in my mind, at the time, that what he deems audible and what I deem audible might not align.

I'd ideally like to see (the curves of) an example of a combination of devices (headphone and amp) which just barely breaks his 1/8 rule (say for example 1/5th, 1/6th, or 1/7th). I would like to know why he goes with 1/8th as his rule of thumb and not, say for example, 1/6th, 1/7th or 1/9th.

I think you're missing the point here. This isn't a strict rule, its a design guideline intended to help engineers design well performing systems subject to a number of assumptions about how typical systems work. You can't "break" a design guideline since its not universally applicable.

When I wrote "rule of thumb" that's what I meant, i.e. not a strict rule but rather a rough generalization. But he didn't pick 1/4 and he didn't pick 1/10th or 1/20th, and I'd like to see the "why", rather than blindly accepting his arbitrary number [from a guy I don't trust to make good judgment calls about what is or isn't transparent, in the first place], that's all.

I'm of the mind that the impedance match issue is continuously variable. It is not like at 1/7th there is a problem, but then, BAM, at 1/8th the problem is completely gone. I suspect that with an expanded scale we would still see alterations to the frequency response even at the 1/8th rule of thumb level in some instances. He, or whoever picked that number, found that as a rough generalization, any deviations observed at that point were pretty minuscule and deemed "inconsequential". I, however, might deem them inconsequential at, oh I don't know, maybe the 1/4 mark (a randomly picked level I grabbed out of nowhere, it also might be in the opposite direction for all I know).

[I also realize that headphones don't have a fixed impedance number, even though we often talk about them as if they do, and that in truth it varies by frequency.]

As per your claim that the correct number used, not picked by him you say, has always been "1/8th", well before the invention of headphones, as it applied to other mechanisms, might you please tell me the exact terminology for this 1/8th rule of thumb principal, so I might further my own research on the matter, or better yet, provide a link speaking to this 1/8th number being used outside the context of audio headphones/speakers/amps? Thanks.

It's a general guideline, FFS! I'm betting you've never studied analog circuit design under someone who knows a thing or two about it. Perhaps control systems? The math between electrical and mechanical control systems is the same, just the devices and units are different.

This post has been edited by greynol: Feb 26 2013, 21:53

--------------------

Breath is found in waveform and spectral plots;DR figures too, of course.

Yes, the "1/8th rule of thumb" is indeed a general guideline which was not picked by nwavguy, so says his above post. My research suggests otherwise, or at least I can't find any references to this 1/8th figure pre-dating him, and I'd like some backing evidence about the "17th century mathematicians" and that it is "textbook stuff passed down" claim:

QUOTE

He didn't pick anything because he wasn't a 17th century mathematician. This is all textbook stuff passed down from people studying mechanical oscillators to early EE a hundred years ago.

Is it really that hard for anyone to simply tell me the "1/8th rule of thumb" principle's proper name as it applies in general, and not specifically headphones? So I might use the correct terminology to google it on my own, which is all I ever asked for in the first place:

QUOTE

might you please tell me the exact terminology for this 1/8th rule of thumb principal, so I might further my own research on the matter,

?

I never asked for a tutorial, just the correct name for it, so I can research it on my own.

P.S. Wikipedia also cites nwavguy, specifically, with the 1/8th rule as it applies to headphones.

Is it really that hard for anyone to simply tell me the "1/8th rule of thumb" principle's proper name as it applies in general

I don't think it has a proper name. Its an obvious consequence of how dampening works.

People generally don't name things that are intuitively obvious. Like the rule of thumb that says if you walk into a door it'll hurt. Theres no door walking into principle because its obvious to people who can walk that they shouldn't walk into doors.

QUOTE (mzil @ Feb 26 2013, 16:49)

P.S. Wikipedia also cites nwavguy with the 1/8th rule as it applies to headphones.

Ok, any additional posts on the matter will go in the Recycle Bin. I recommend starting a new topic or using the PM system. If the former, please first ask (again, via PM) that this portion of the discussion be split.

--------------------

Breath is found in waveform and spectral plots;DR figures too, of course.

Perhaps it is useful to you since you have the output impedances of these various devices commited to memory, I don't, so I have no idea by how much they break the 1/8th rule of thumb. Remember, I never questioned if impedance can have consequences on the frequency response. That's not the topic.

QUOTE

The purple line on this graph looks pretty audible to me. I'll leave evaluation of the rest of the parameters to you.

I'm not interested in what you deem audible, I'm interested in what nwavguy deems audible. EEs aren't always the best psychoacousticians, I've found.

I'll excuse the slur as you obviously have no idea who I am or what I've studied or done.

Given that NWAVguy is spinning his wheels with an overkill headphone amplifier your prejudices seem odd to me.

No slur intended. My bad. I worded it poorly. I was speaking in general terms and didn't mean to imply that the EE I was refering to was you, if it seemed that way due to my poor wording. I respect your judgement and consider your comments on what is and isn't audible to be authoritative, it just wasn't what I was seeking at the time.

The purple line on this graph looks pretty audible to me. I'll leave evaluation of the rest of the parameters to you.

I'm not interested in what you deem audible, I'm interested in what nwavguy deems audible.

How about what you deem audible?

QUOTE (mzil @ Oct 2 2012, 14:59)

ABX would be one example, but others I would be interested in include measurements showing they have been EQ'd by an amount we all would generally expect to be audible. [many dB, not tenths of a dB, for example]

It is not at all unreasonable to describe the sweeps Arny is calling into question as varying from flat by "many dB."

This post has been edited by greynol: Feb 26 2013, 23:48

--------------------

Breath is found in waveform and spectral plots;DR figures too, of course.

^Based on their very close time stamps, I assume you hadn't read my previous post at the time you composed yours, and now no longer request any response to the above. If I have misconstrued that, please let me know.